Monday, August 24, 2009

President Double Speaks On Morality

R-71 UPDATE: R-71 Error Rate Drops

The Secretary of State's office issued a report on Saturday that shows the error rate on signatures dropped from Thursday to Friday. The report says in part:

The Elections Division’s signature checkers have reviewed just over 9,000 new Referendum 71 signatures . The cumulative signature check total is now more than 97,000, almost two-thirds of the total submitted in late July.

Nearly 86,000 signatures have been accepted and almost 11,400 rejected for one reason or another. The signature error rate has dropped from yesterday’s 11.97 percent to the current rate of 11.68 percent. The overall rejection rate must not go over 12.4 percent if R-71 is to go on the ballot.

He said those who do not spread his truth are, "bearing false witness."

What is his truth?

He told the religious far left to start spreading the truth that his health care reform will not allow government funding of abortions.

The President said, "I know there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate. And there are some folks out here who are, frankly, bearing false witness."

He says those who oppose his health care plan are putting out fabrications in order to discourage people from meeting what he calls, "a core ethical and moral obligation."

Is our moral obligation and directive defined only by whether we support his plan? What about the content of the plan, Mr. President?

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life said, "The call for reform as a 'moral imperative' rings hollow with Americans, because the overwhelming majority firmly oppose tax payer funding for abortion coverage."

David Bereit, national director of the 40 Days for Life Campaign, issued a joint statement with other pro-life leaders which said, "President Obama stated that abortion funding would not be included in health care reform. Talk is cheap."

Pro-life leaders who have reviewed the health care reform plans say the plans in both chambers of Congress, will, in fact, allow federal funds to pay for abortions.

Yoest said, "As the Hippocratic Oath reminds us, health care grounded in a moral imperative protects the most vulnerable among us, including the unborn and the elderly. Real health care does not fund the destruction of unborn children, and it does not delay or deny care to the sick, elderly and weak among us---but that is the prospect we currently face."

President Obama and the far left are trying to frame the health care debate not on it's moral substance, but rather defining support as a "moral imperative" and to disagree, immoral or a moral failure.

Relativism.

We have seen his double speak on marriage. He has said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, yet he has begun the task of abolishing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which will deconstruct marriage forever, opening the door for not only legalized homosexual "marriage," but marriage for polygamists, group marriage and beyond.

Now he is calling passing his health care plan a "moral imperative," and if anyone raises the true morality questions they are said to be, "bearing false witness."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told the press on Friday that President Obama is, "quite comfortable" with the prospect of being a one-term president.

I would also be quite comfortable with that.

Zogby International Poll was reporting on Friday that the President's approval rating hit a new low, with only a 45% approval rating.

Remember the old saying, "you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all...?" Sure, you remember it.

The way I understand it, there is a 'few' without insurance, and not a justification to uproot our health system with everyone, with all health insurances etc. Would be cost affective to find another way to help those without insurances, instead of making every aspect of our health system to change! More importantly ''Jesus' already knows, and we are looking to HIM for answers, and praying this insane idea of health reform goes away!

Regarding "What would Jesus do? Support health care for everyone and work to reduce or end abortions?"

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking He would support health care for everyone, but not necessarily working through the government. I believe he'd want his people to take care of each other; to rally around each other in love and provide for the needy. I can't think of any scriptural examples where He said anything like give all your money to the government so they can take better care of you.

Yes, I do believe he would want to end abortions as well. He was on board with that whole "don't murder" thing. Crazy, I know.

I see we agree that Jesus would want health care coverage for everyone. So now the question is how to do it.

Clearly, rallying around each other in love and providing for the needy isn't working. I think the only way to get coverage for everyone is through some type of government program.

I don't think Jesus would really care if it was through the government in the US any more than he would for Japan, Canada, Norway, and all the other industrialized nations that provide health care for ALL of his children.

What is this "What Would Jesus Do" stuff? Any fellow Christians out there want to channel the Creator of the Universe's thoughts on health care ObAmerica 2009?? We already KNOW What Jesus Did. It's called the New Testament (in the BIBLE - or Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth for the acronym crowd). The truly saved know what needs to be done, have always done it, and will forever do it for our fellow man.

That's great that you do it for your fellow man. But how does that get health care coverage for all of Christ's children? I really do think that's what Jesus would want. You don't think he'd want that?

Well, why doesn't he just make sure all the children never get sick? This is along the same lines as when Jesus was asked "Who sinned, this man, or his father?" (implying that one or the other was responsible for why he was blind or lame, I forget which).

What was the answer? Was the answer, "because God wasn't able to get the government to provide healthcare for everyone?" Or maybe because He wasn't able to keep people from being sick, blind, deaf, or lame? No, it was done so that at that moment, when he healed the man, the glory of God could be shown. You comments seem to come from a point of view that suffering is inately wrong, and that nothing good can come from it. If that were the case, I don't believe God would allow it, but he does, and many good things DO come from it. So, while I'm not exciting about children (I have 3) or anyone else suffering, I don't think it's valid to drive the government toward (or allow them to drive toward towards) a goal based on a false premise. The government, as much as I love our system (best in the world, in my opinion), has not consistently proven itself able to EFFICIENTLY manage programs with all the proper checks and balances to make things both cost-effective and optimal. What did Jesus do? He didn't try to change the government of his time, he changed individual lives, one person at a time, just like the church is commissioned to do in his foot steps these days.